Day 20/06/2014

“Far from being sources of agony and dread, hard choices are precious opportunities for us to celebrate what is special about the human condition.That the reasons that govern our choices as correct or incorrect sometimes run out and it is here, in the space of hard choices, that we have the power to create reasons for ourselves to become the distinctive people that we are. And that’s why hard choices are not a curse, but a godsend.” – Ruth Chang

In this splendid TED talk, philosopher Ruth Chang examines the misconceptions and unexamined assumptions that govern our understanding and handling of hard choices. She invites us to rethink how we frame the act of choosing between unequal alternatives, where each option is better in some ways than the other but neither is better overall. Rather than agonizing over trying to uncover the “right” option in such a situation, we should celebrate and enact our agency in creating the right reasons for ourselves. This is a modern take on Giovanni Pico della Mirandola‘s Oration on the Dignity of Man. Way back in 1486, Pico della Mirandola unhinged mankind from the Great Chain of Being, highlighting the agency we each possess in choosing and fashioning our own nature. It is this very agency, this power we have to choose who we shall be[come], that is the defining characteristic of the human condition, he argued. And it is through the hard choices we make, claims Chang, that we enact this great human power we all have to shape our being and embrace the fullness of our humanity.

{ t r u t h s }

I think the puzzle arisesbecause of an unreflective assumptionwe make about value.We unwittingly assume that valueslike justice, beauty, kindness,are akin to scientific quantities,like length, mass and weight.Take any comparative question not involving value,such as which of two suitcases is heavier? There are only three possibilities.The weight of one is greater, lesseror equal to the weight of the other. Properties like weight can be representedby real numbers — one, two, three and so on —and there are only three possible comparisonsbetween any two real numbers.One number is greater, lesser,or equal to the other.Not so with values.As post-Enlightenment creatures,we tend to assumethat scientific thinking holds the keyto everything of importance in our world,but the world of valueis different from the world of science.The stuff of the one worldcan be quantified by real numbers.The stuff of the other world can’t.We shouldn’t assumethat the world of is, of lengths and weights,has the same structure as the world of ought,of what we should do.So if what matters to us —a child’s delight, the love you have for your partner —can’t be represented by real numbers,then there’s no reason to believethat in choice, there are only three possibilities —that one alternative is better, worse or equalto the other.We need to introduce a new, fourth relationbeyond being better, worse or equal,that describes what’s going on in hard choices.I like to say that the alternatives are“on a par.”When alternatives are on a par,it may matter very much which you choose,but one alternative isn’t better than the other.Rather, the alternatives are inthe same neighborhood of value,in the same league of value,while at the same time being very differentin kind of value.That’s why the choice is hard.

Understanding hard choices in this wayuncovers something about ourselves we didn’t know.Each of us has the powerto create reasons.Imagine a world in which every choice you faceis an easy choice,that is, there’s always a best alternative.If there’s a best alternative,then that’s the one you should choose, because part of being rationalis doing the better thing rather than the worse thing,choosing what you have most reason to choose.In such a world,we’d have most reasonto wear black socks instead of pink socks,to eat cereal instead of donuts,to live in the city rather than the country,to marry Betty instead of Lolita.A world full of only easy choiceswould enslave us to reasons.When you think about it,it’s nuts to believethat the reasons given to youdictated that you had most reason to pursuethe exact hobbies you do,to live in the exact house you do,to work at the exact job you do.Instead, you faced alternativesthat were on a par, hard choices,and you made reasons for yourselfto choose that hobby, that house and that job.When alternatives are on a par,the reasons given to us, the onesthat determine whether we’re making a mistake,are silent as to what to do.It’s here, in the space of hard choices,that we get to exerciseour normative power,the power to create reasons for yourself,to make yourselfinto the kind of personfor whom country livingis preferable to the urban life.

When we choose betweenoptions that are on a par,we can do something really rather remarkable.We can put our very selves behind an option.Here’s where I stand.Here’s who I am. I am for banking.I am for chocolate donuts.This response in hard choicesis a rational response,but it’s not dictated by reasons given to us.Rather, it’s supported by reasons created by us.When we create reasons for ourselvesto become this kind of person rather than that,we wholeheartedly become the people that we are.You might say that we become the authorsof our own lives.

…*

So when we face hard choices,we shouldn’t beat our head against a walltrying to figure out which alternative is better.There is no best alternative.Instead of looking for reasons out there,we should be looking for reasons in here:Who am I to be?You might decide to be a pink sock-wearing,cereal-loving, country-living banker,and I might decide to be a black sock-wearing,urban, donut-loving artist.What we do in hard choices is very muchup to each of us.